Once And For All...

[coolpurplefan]

Originally posted by: Ackmed
He did bring up a good point. Doom3 sucked, and I paid $55 for it, because it was supposed to be so good.

Demos are cool.

I'm still playing the BF2 demo. :Q

I should buy it though. I think I'm gonna get the complete package edition.

 

[Ackmed]

Originally posted by: coolpurplefan

Originally posted by: Ackmed
He did bring up a good point. Doom3 sucked, and I paid $55 for it, because it was supposed to be so good.

Demos are cool.

I'm still playing the BF2 demo. :Q

I should buy it though. I think I'm gonna get the complete package edition.

The Doom3 demo didnt come out till LONG after the game did.

I dont care what people think, but I download games first if there is no demo to try it out first. Im not wasting my money, because they dont let you take anything back anymore.

 

[Cheex]

Well then, I guess there is nothing else to do but wait on the demo or full game (whichever comes first (wierd)).

A demo in August would be GREAT!!!!

 

[LittleNemoNES]

Originally posted by: coolpurplefan

Originally posted by: Ackmed
He did bring up a good point. Doom3 sucked, and I paid $55 for it, because it was supposed to be so good.

Demos are cool.

I'm still playing the BF2 demo. :Q

I should buy it though. I think I'm gonna get the complete package edition.

BF2 is awesome. I have 600+hrs clocked O_O

 

[Cheex]

Why is Crytek so tight with their information?

No word yet on not even a demo (the first stage of the game (demo) has already been released to the press).

 

[ArchAngel777]

Originally posted by: Cheex
Why is Crytek so tight with their information?

No word yet on not even a demo (the first stage of the game (demo) has already been released to the press).

No idea as to why they are tight, but my guess it has a little bit to do with other devs ripping them off or reverse engineering their engine of some sorts... I prefer a tight lipped company, because generally they know their product is so solid, that they don't have to brag it up like others (Valve)... I am eagerly awaiting Crysis as well, but I don't want them to release it before it is ready. As it is now, if it were to be released, I would still wait a while before checking it out (much like Lost Planet) to make sure it is stable and relatively bug free.

I am already GREATLY dissapointed with the fact that EA pushed them to have it ready by a certain date and thus dropped Co-Op support.. :-( What a mistake...

 

[Skott]

Personally, I doubt Crysis is going to suck. I expect it to be a very good game and very fun to play based on Far Cry, the developers that made it, and all the info that has come out about it. Now having said that for those wanting to get a card that'll play Crysis I'd say, like others here, wait until the game is out or at the very least a working demo.

Next week I plan on finally getting my parts ordered for my next build (its been a long time in coming). A nice little SFF unit with a 8800GTS 640 card. 2Gb RAM and a Intel 6750 to help push it along. I have every confidence it'll run Crysis on a 22" LCD more than adequately.

 

[Cheex]

I just hope that my rig can run it well on the Acer 20" that I want to get. If not, then I hope the upgrades don't cost me that much.

 

[lopri]

I've heard from a very very reliable person that none of the current cream of crop will be able to handle the upcoming high-end games at decent res/quality settings. (such as 16x12, I assume)

 

[BFG10K]

I've heard from a very very reliable person that none of the current cream of crop will be able to handle the upcoming high-end games at decent res/quality settings. (such as 16x12, I assume)

That's been the case for a very long time. Whenever a cutting edge game arrives it usually takes at least two upgrade cycles before hardware can truly run it well.

 

[Keysplayr]

Crysis just looks like a redone, candied up version of FarCry. Better physics, more destroyable objects, better AI. Other than that, it's FarCry. To me.

 

[Cheex]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

I've heard from a very very reliable person that none of the current cream of crop will be able to handle the upcoming high-end games at decent res/quality settings. (such as 16x12, I assume)

That's been the case for a very long time. Whenever a cutting edge game arrives it usually takes at least two upgrade cycles before hardware can truly run it well.

Are you saying that Crysis won't play well until after the 8900 refresh and then when G92 comes?

 

[Genison]

I remember the same speculation with Half Life 2 before it came out. They ensured that it would be possible to play it even on the lowest end of the spectrum with Direct X 8. I know Crytek has made it backwards compatible for Direct X 9, so I'm thinking it will run great on a wide range of systems. Some people will have to disable features. Heck, my brother still has a 9700 Pro and an Athlon XP 2200+ proc. He was able to play STALKER at 800x600 fine. Yeah, crappy resolution, but it worked fine and he lost no enjoyment for gameplay.

It will be fine. They have set a standard for good programming and forethought in the audience they are trying to attract.

 

[Cheex]

I don't think that I'm as concerned about the power of my card as I am about the limited memory (320MB) at a potential 1680x1050.

I can currently play Oblivion @ 10x7, 11x8 & 12x9 with 2x/4x/8x/16x AA & 16x AF & HDR, all sliders maxed. I just need some more memory to smooth everything out.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Cheex
I don't think that I'm as concerned about the power of my card as I am about the limited memory (320MB) at a potential 1680x1050.

I can currently play Oblivion @ 10x7, 11x8 & 12x9 with 2x/4x/8x/16x AA & 16x AF & HDR, all sliders maxed. I just need some more memory to smooth everything out.

There is a utility called Video Memory Watcher
You can use this to monitor how much texture memory is being used while gaming. Just let it run in the background while gaming. Try different resolutions, different levels of AA and note the changes.

 

[ConstipatedVigilante]

For Oblivion you can just type "tdt" in the console, then "sdt 13." It will tell you the FPS, geometric objects being rendered, and amount of VRAM in use, along with other stuff I don't really understand.

 

[Cheex]

Originally posted by: ConstipatedVigilante
For Oblivion you can just type "tdt" in the console, then "sdt 13." It will tell you the FPS, geometric objects being rendered, and amount of VRAM in use, along with other stuff I don't really understand.

I tried this and I have a question:

Texture memory - I deduce that T is the total but what does S and R stand for?

 

[BFG10K]

Are you saying that Crysis won't play well until after the 8900 refresh and then when G92 comes?

Yes. To truly run the game in all it's full glory (i.e. everything cranked with good levels of AA at a good resolution) I expect you'll need to wait at least two or three generations from today?s current top-dog 8800 Ultra.

There are games already out like Stalker and Call of Juarez that absolutely cripple current high-end offerings if you try to turn everything up. I expect Crysis will be even more demanding as it offers far better visuals.

Even in the past using games based on the Quake 3 engine as an example, it wasn't until I got a GF4 Ti4600 that I could truly run them well (1600x1200 which was considered a high resolution back then) despite the games being targeted for TNT2/GeForce class hardware. The same applies to Unreal and that was originally designed for Voodoo 2 cards.

New games crushing current hardware is nothing new.

 

[tuteja1986]

at e3 2007 they were running crysis on a single 8800GTX , 2GB of ram , Intel Q6600. all the editors played it said it was running 60FPS + but on everything high. so only reason you would sli according to developer if you want to play the game at ultra high res.

 

[Ackmed]

Im in agreement with bfg. I dont think any card out now will run the game well enough for me. Certainly not at my res of 1920x1200. I want AA/AF and options on high.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

Are you saying that Crysis won't play well until after the 8900 refresh and then when G92 comes?

Yes. To truly run the game in all it's full glory (i.e. everything cranked with good levels of AA at a good resolution) I expect you'll need to wait at least two or three generations from today?s current top-dog 8800 Ultra.

There are games already out like Stalker and Call of Juarez that absolutely cripple current high-end offerings if you try to turn everything up. I expect Crysis will be even more demanding as it offers far better visuals.

Even in the past using games based on the Quake 3 engine as an example, it wasn't until I got a GF4 Ti4600 that I could truly run them well (1600x1200 which was considered a high resolution back then) despite the games being targeted for TNT2/GeForce class hardware. The same applies to Unreal and that was originally designed for Voodoo 2 cards.

New games crushing current hardware is nothing new.

I agree that Call of Juarez puts a hurting on current high end cards, but I'll have to disagree on STALKER. At least at 1680x1050 (my monitors native res) my 8800GTS with CPU stock at 2.13GHz (STALKER is CPU limited, I know, I've tested) STALKER is MORE than playable keeping framerates in the 40 to 60 range most of the time. Occasionally the framerate will drop to the lowest at about 35-36, but only for a moment and for STALKER, that is still easily playable. And it only drops there momentarily here or there. This is with ALL in game settings maxxed. If I had a faster CPU, or o/c'd mine regularly, those framerates only get higher, including minimum.

 

[Fenixgoon]

there is no "once and for all", especially when the game in question doesn't even exist yet!

please wait for benchmarks. i can't stress that enough!

 

[the Chase]

Originally posted by: SickBeast
I would assume that Crysis was developed on the 8800GTX seeing as it was first to market, and the game has been in development for quite some time now. All of the tech demos I've heard about have been running on an 8800GTX or else SLI.

I don't see much sense in buying hardware now for a game that's not on the market yet, but if you do need to upgrade, my hunch is that any of the 8800 cards will run the game decently when it comes out (on medium settings).

There is always the chance that the game will use that strange new 'feature' that the 2900XT has that has not been exploited yet (and is supposedly a DX 10.1 feature). This may give the 2900XT the boost it needs to beat out a GTX.

My guess is that there will be new cards on the market by the time this game ships, and it would make sense to wait for reviews to see which card is the best for this game. From what I've seen of it, it's an enormous leap in terms of graphics above any game I've ever seen, so logically it will require massive hardware to run nicely. My opinion is that even on top end hardware the game will crawl. I remember running Far Cry on my 9700 Pro, thinking it was unplayable at 1280x1024 with any sort of AA enabled; I would imagine that Crysis will be similar. They want to licence the engine for future games, so it has to be cutting edge and will require massive hardware to run it properly.

I'm guessing it will also take advantage of a quad core CPU, so you should take this into consideration as well.

OP: To answer your questions about the 'videos', I'm pretty sure the demos I saw ran at 1920x1200 on an 8800GTX SLI rig, and the framerate definately dropped below 30FPS many times when there was alot of action on-screen.

Did the 2900XT really end up having DX10.1? I never see that mentioned in any reviews, but said reviews didn't deny (or mention it at all) it either.

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: the Chase
Did the 2900XT really end up having DX10.1? I never see that mentioned in any reviews, but said reviews didn't deny (or mention it at all) it either.

It has a 'tesselator', however, I'm pretty sure having that feature alone will not allow it to meet DX 10.1 specs. Link

 

[BFG10K]

but I'll have to disagree on STALKER. At least at 1680x1050 (my monitors native res) my 8800GTS with CPU stock at 2.13GHz (STALKER is CPU limited, I know, I've tested)

That's because 1680x1050 is a low resolution so it's not at all surprising to find you're CPU limited. Try 1920x1440 or higher and your card will squirm.

Also Stalker doesn't allow hardware AA so it relieves the card of the burden it would otherwise have.